CommonSense's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the it's-just-common-sense dept

This week's "favorites" post comes from the aptly-named CommonSense. Who can disagree with a little CommonSense?

I was starting to think that this day might never come. I've had an insightful comment show up in that weekly post before, and I've even been told by one of my favorite commenters turned contributor, Dark Helmet, that I was basketball stupid (at least he noticed me, right??....more importantly, at least the Heat LOST!). But with my sometimes sporadic comments coming in surges, I wondered if I had what it took to be a chosen one, and reveal for the world what my favorite posts of the week really were. Alas, here I am. I'm going to do things a little bit different, and show you all some of the main reasons I visit this site. This week there were a lot of good posts - I currently have 25 tabs open, each to an article I hope to mention - and many of them touch similar topics, each with different bits of information, or different viewpoints. Let's get started.

There we are, clear as day, with the U.S. government acting almost exactly like the Chinese government we hear our officials condemn so often. The only difference is that China is open about monitoring live communications (didn't Obama promise to be more open???), while our government tries to hide it with what could seriously be compared to the 7 second delay. As long as they're not listening while we're having the conversation, it's cool, right? Hollywood is in the U.S., isn't it? So why are they controlling UK courts, and why would Canadian officials be mimicking their behavior? Luckily, they don't have enough money to give to everyone in the world (Mexican Senate Calls On President To Reject ACTA) or else this might start happening everywhere: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France.

I was told by a wise man once, DeInter Nett was his name, that an older definition, since replaced, of fascism, defined it as the "Authoritarian merging of government and industry". The point was that high level people, many of them with familiar sounding last names, moved swiftly between government and industry positions. There weren't any specific posts touching that exact topic this week, but what we see above are definitely symptoms of a problem that seems eerily familiar to that definition.

Re: The future seems promising.

The reason I'm saying the future looks bright is because, I'm wondering how long until people start putting personal autonomous blimps all over the cities to create cellphone newtorks, that are completely free of carriers for local calls, that don't use any of the carriers networks for local data transfers.

Which also can bring autonomous UAVs that can create pirate radio stations and TV stations.

On the naughty side people could use those things to sniff out wireless connections from those folks they don't like and even spy on the lawyers that use cellphones.

Re: Re: The future seems promising.

I'm wondering how long until people start putting personal autonomous blimps all over the cities to create cellphone newtorks, that are completely free of carriers for local calls, that don't use any of the carriers networks for local data transfers.

Technically, that would work just fine (especially using ultra-wide-band), but there's no way the government (DHS, FBI, FAA, FCC, etc.) would allow it. Nice fantasy, but you'd be lucky to even make it to prison if you tried. That's not really so "promising".

Re:

Please. Do us all a favor. Read the damn articles on why he likes them.

I get so weary of people trying to dismiss something for "tin foil hat" crap. Not everything is a damned conspiracy. He has some really good reasons that he likes the articles, such as the person not coming forward (in public) to Wyden about using cell phone data improperly.

Not every last law should be followed if it means giving the government more chances to spy on citizens in the name of national security. Maybe the best idea is to actually understand what the articles mean instead of ad hom attacks that do nothing for your position.

An autonomous blimp would be hard to find, authorities would have a hard time trying to "seize" anything in the air, that can go down to swap batteries and equipment autonomously and with time, that could be done completely in the air without ever getting close to the ground.

Not counting the utility of such system at the first natural disaster that occurs, when the legal offers may go down, with the pirates the only ones with systems robust enough to stay up and running in such scenarios.

I think you underestimate the determination of some people along with the inherent need that society have for such things, those things are what maintain a healthy society, they are the manure that drives not only innovation but keep governments honest and business in check.

In one word "competition".

It is not a dream it is happening right now, is just you never paid attention to it before.

Comp etition is all around us, some are trying to get shielded from it by constructing a cocoon of rules but what they are doing is insulating themselves from the real world that at some point will come knocking on their doors.

Cisco discovered that, it is the biggest network manufacturer inside the U.S., but only there nowhere else, in the world Nokia(Finish), Huawei(Chinese), Ericsson(Swedish) are the big boys today, Americans may be even paying for Chinese patents right now and that trend is not going to slow down.

People who don't compete and try to insulate themselves will harm their own societies at some point reality will blown their little wood houses away and they will find themselves unable to cope with the elements, except for the hackers that were born out of the harsh enviroment they were put in, those are the people that will lead, because those are the people who don't need legal crutches to survive, those are the people really innovating because if they don't they die(or go to jail which is kind of a legal death).

Re: Re:

It's tin foil hat stuff for a whole bunch of reasons. The implications are that, in the face of a tragic event that the police and authorities around the world should do nothing differently. As Mike would say, repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is stupid. It isn't unusual for authorities to take a closer look at some things to make sure that they haven't missed something, or if there is something they could do better.

The Senate working on the "secret" thing is amusing as well, because the implication is that the Senate can only work on a single piece of legislation at a time, and that this week is the budget so anything else they do is somehow sneaky. Apparently it was such a big secret that everyone saw it.

I could go on. Most of the stuff Mike puts out there at this level is to try to make you trust the government less, and to treat every action as bad. I think this recent change in tone at Techdirt has to do with the Government moving forward with projects, treaties, and legislation that will make piracy much harder and much less public, which in turn shoots down much of the logic of the "new" Techdirt business models.

Remember: Infinite distribution doesn't exist if you actually have to pay to distribute something. The theoretical infinite only exists with absolutely zero marginal costs. As soon as there is any marginal cost (even the cost of bandwidth to serve a song) you no longer have the blessed infinite distribution network.

So in the end, the stories are tin foil hat stuff because they don't rely on the actual situation to scare you, but rather attempt to scare you by implying that the government or other groups are trying to sneak something, back room style, that will completely change your life and make you into slaves or something.

It's humorous, and even more funny to watch the sheeple here fall for it.

Re: Re: Re:

Surprise, I don't need Mike's help to trust the government less. The government does a good enough job doing that on its own. Besides, no country should EVER trust its governing body. That's the path to complacency and loss of liberties.

Re: Re: Re:

"I think this recent change in tone at Techdirt has to do with the Government moving forward with projects, treaties, and legislation that will make piracy much harder and much less public, which in turn shoots down much of the logic of the "new" Techdirt business models."

This? This right here? Is bullshit, plain and simple.

Victoria Espinel moved forward with the copyright enforcement angle through ICE. What has the net benefit of that legislation done? Has it stopped piracy or caused more outcry? Has it caused more money to go to the copyright holders, or is it showing how ineffective that angle is?

S978 - How has the antistreaming bill actually caused MORE people to become aware of the law and its vague attempts at criminalizing the populace?

Business models - Obviously, Kickstarter, Spotify, Rockethub are just techdirt business models that you don't want to see succeed. No, you want everyone to go through the RIAA and MPAA for their success because copyright is the only way to make money. Yeah... Good luck with that. Meanwhile, I'm going to donate some money to these guys who have made over 637% (as of today) of their goal and incentivize people to help them out.

"Remember: Infinite distribution doesn't exist if you actually have to pay to distribute something. "

Irrelevant.

"So in the end, the stories are tin foil hat stuff because they don't rely on the actual situation to scare you, but rather attempt to scare you by implying that the government or other groups are trying to sneak something, back room style, that will completely change your life and make you into slaves or something."

So you go from tin foil, to broadband, back to tin foil?

Alright genius, how did you not understand that, James Clapper, the Intelligence Chief in his questioning, avoided Wyden's press about the secret way they're tapping phone records for geolocation data?

How do you not look into laws such as the Antichild porn act (read: data retention act of 2011) and say supposedly it's tin foil when it actually hampers your privacy by allowing government officials access to your data without your permission?

There's no sheeple here. You just prefer that people don't use their minds and come to their own conclusions. That's even sadder.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Jay, please. "So you go from tin foil, to broadband, back to tin foil?". I was only making a comment that Mike seems to getting more and more worked up over the government as they move to attack piracy, and in turn sort of kick the legs out from under his infinite distribution universe. It's a potential explanation for why he seems to be popping all these conspiracy theory posts recently.

I want business models that respect the law and respect the artists (and the people they have contracted with). I don't care how people go about it, if they want to work with an RIAA label or do it all themselves, it is up to them. However, I object when the key part of the business models hinge on illegal activity. It doesn't matter who you are doing business with, if you need the piracy infrastructure to make your model work, you are sort of failing to me.

But back on point, I just think that many of the posts Mike has put up recently seem to be attempts to stir up the "sheeple", creating an issue where none really exists. The Senate can process more that one piece of legislation over a given session. It's a tin foiler's dream to think that they are sneaking something through. You know, sneaking things through by publishing it, debating it, voting on it, and passing it in public. Yeah, that's sneaky for sure!

So it isn't about my personal views on anything, only an observation about how Mike is trying to direct people's anger and fear (some would call it creating FUD). I appreciate your attempt to make the story about me, but how about actually addressing the issues I present rather than trying to make it about me?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It doesn't matter who you are doing business with, if you need the piracy infrastructure to make your model work, you are sort of failing to me."

Dear AC, there is no such thing as piracy infrastructure. The unauthorized distribution of files on the internet is happening on infrastructure that was designed to carry files regardless of authorization. USENET was originally designed for news bulletins (hence "bulletin board service"), BitTorrent is a way to distribute large files (such as OpenOffice or Linux) and even the codecs, such as MP3, were developed for a reason other than to be "piracy infrastructure" (MP3 was developed, I believe, for use in digital radio!) ~ Yes, all of these things are used extensively for "piracy", I will not deny that, but, as has been pointed out more times than a paranoid buys tinfoil to buy hats, it does also have very legitimate, legal, authorized uses.

Re:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with tech, Coward?

1> There is a "piracy infrastructure", that is the P2P network,1> and the chains of file lockers and other sites that1> provide theoretical free distribution.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. That is information distribution infrastructure that happens to sometimes be used for what you call "piracy", but it isn't purely for that purpose, Coward.

1> If your business models depend on either of those two,1> I have a problem with the business model.

Then you have a problem with Red Hat's business model, and Blizzard's, and BitTorrent itself's, which is a shame, since all of those are legitimate business; also with the business models of a large and growing number of musicians and other artists.

1> However, it isn't the point. The point is the mindless,1> tin foil hat stuff Mike has posted recently.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with tech, Coward?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What? Why are you demanding that business models ignore excellent new distribution technologies?

This is your problem. You see P2P as a "piracy infrastructure" instead of what it actually is: one of the best and most efficient ways of distributing information. It's incredible to me that you see something providing "theoretical free distribution" and reject it on that basis...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I actually think "tinfoil hat stuff" is usually just as good to read. See, I read the articles Mike posts but I form my own opinion. Yeah, I read Mike's opinion too, as I like taking in everybody's opinions when I can (if I read every comment on every article I'd go bonkers!) and while there does seem to be an increase in the "tinfoil hat" type stories, I find it to be because the governments of the world (I am Australian and ours isn't any better than the US government!) are doing more things lately that would justify this kind of story.

I don't wear a tin foil hat myself. I don't believe they would be effective. [sarc]If it was that simple to stop "alien mind probes" then the aliens obviously need to develop better mind probing technology.[/sarc] Besides: We only have aluminium foil now, not tin foil.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I was only making a comment that Mike seems to getting more and more worked up over the government as they move to attack piracy, and in turn sort of kick the legs out from under his infinite distribution universe."

So you're going after this entire series of posts? Ok... I'll get some popcorn, you detail how your theory of an infinite good such as a movie after production doesn't create more value for tangible goods. OR, and here's another thought... People don't congregate in communities around certain movies or shows increasing its value.

Meanwhile, JK Rowling's example of not using pdfs in the early millenium still holds up. She made her fans pirates by not serving them. Now with her new website, she really did it in a grandiose fashion.

And she's not the only one. I would love to do a large post on Valve and how they combat piracy. When you have Gabe Newell, looking at the field and saying "how do we compete?", that opens a lot more doors than this belief that copyright should be enforced while taking away society's rights and choices.

"However, I object when the key part of the business models hinge on illegal activity. It doesn't matter who you are doing business with, if you need the piracy infrastructure to make your model work, you are sort of failing to me."

Disingenuous at best. If you think that everyone is a pirate, you're probably right. None of the business models presented above "hinge on illegal activity" and you know it.

And while they're failing to you, they're succeeding to the people making them. That's the key difference.

"Yeah, that's sneaky for sure!"

So then, why not answer the question and why the runaround?

"I appreciate your attempt to make the story about me, but how about actually addressing the issues I present rather than trying to make it about me?"

By no means am I making this about you. But since you aren't reading the articles and criticizing Commonsense's favorites for being FUD, or even "tin foil hat" conspiracies, it makes your argument weaker. You'd rather attack Mike for showing the article from the Wired Danger Room that reaches the same conclusion instead of read about how Clapper won't answer in public what's happening in private. So does this mean that the Wired writer is a tin foil hat wearer as well? You've said absolutely nothing about Ackerman, merely criticizing Mike for posting his opinion on the story. So there's plenty of wafting in the air.

You're free to continue to criticize others for being opinionated. Just don't take it poorly when people call you on your bullshit.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The great piracy infra-structure you talk about is called American family.

That is the root of the problem right there, P2P, cyber lockers are just tools, not the infra-structure, like people can use any recording device to transfer their booty as they have done for decades now.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

However, I object when the key part of the business models hinge on illegal activity.

There you go with your lies (again). Mike does not tell people to engage in illegal activities. Of course, you'd like to pretend otherwise and say that an artist distributing their stuff for free, and bypassing your employers, is somehow illegal.

But back on point, I just think that many of the posts Mike has put up recently seem to be attempts to stir up the "sheeple", creating an issue where none really exists.

You wish. You're more like the wolf trying to reassure the sheeple that there's nothing to be alarmed about. "Never mind what I'm doing here, just keep on grazing. I'm not hungry right now. Honest!"

You know, sneaking things through by publishing it, debating it, voting on it, and passing it in public.

Secret sessions aren't exactly "public", Mr. Wolf.

Yeah, that's sneaky for sure!

Yes, it is.

So it isn't about my personal views on anything,

It's just what you're paid to do, eh?

I appreciate your attempt to make the story about me, but how about actually addressing the issues I present rather than trying to make it about me?

Translation: Now, please look the other way and go back to grazing, sheeple.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Marcus, I know why Mike let's you post articles here. It's because you are so drunk on the kool aid you can't even think straight.

Question: do you think there would be many P2P nodes (users) online if there wasn't widespread piracy? Do you think that everyone would have their P2P software turned on full time to share Sita Sings The Blues and trade Corey Smith songs?

The answer for me is no. Why bother? The most popular items by far over P2P are pirated, illegal content. People are using P2P because that is what they want. If they cannot get it, they would not be there.

The result? Your "best and more efficient way of distributing information" would disappear overnight.

Further, let's be fair here. P2P is neither efficient nor the best way to distribute data, because most networks are not built in that manner. The most effecient way to distribute something is through distributed server networks, where you connect to a server reasonably close to you and download what you want as quickly as you can. That gets you the file you want quickly and easily, without any fears of the file having a virus, not being what you really wanted, or being some sort of crap file.

Of course, those who choose to distribute illegal material can't use that sort of direct, efficient distribution, they have to use methods to hide their activities. Those methods are remarkably inefficient, but have low costs for distribution.

You know this stuff, you just don't want to accept it. It's okay, maybe you can write Mike's next tin foil hat piece.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I know that the majority of data distributed over P2P networks and via BitTorrent is unauthorized copies of files but that does not mean that is the only thing they are good for.

Take a file locker, for example. I could put a copy of the CD that I am currently ripping in one (I am currently ripping my old 1985 CD of "Scary Monsters" by David Bowie - it has not been available to buy since 1986, only different CD versions) - I would be legally entitled to upload this to a file locker as far as I know. If, however, I take the link TO those files and share that link, then I would be infringing copyright. However, if I went to visit my father (who lives some 2,000 miles north of where I live) and felt like playing that CD while I was staying there, I could download the files to his computer and play the album. I don't know if that infringes on copyright or not but I would be making use of a file locker to transport some files I legally own some 2,000 miles. And at 450-odd-megabytes (I rip to WAV not MP3) it is a little hard to email said files even to myself.

Now, whilst I was visiting my father, I could shoot a lot of video on my camera. He lives in a very nice area and I would indeed love some footage of that area. I could keep all my raw footage in a hard disk drive or I could compress it (maybe even edit it while I am there on holiday) and then upload it to a file locker so that I can download it all when I get home again. Sure, I could also burn it to a DVD or two, but the file locker is also an option.

There is two perfectly legitimate and LEGAL ways I could use a file locker. Yes, I could also share my David Bowie CD with the internet community if I wanted to. And that would be an illegal use of a file locker. But just because I can, does not mean I will.

Again, before you say it, yes I know that is what a LOT of people use them for. But that is not the only use for one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You missed the point. It isn't that P2P is "only good for pirated stuff", but rather that P2P only has enough nodes and users because of pirated stuff. Without the desirable content being pirated, most people wouldn't even install P2P software on their machines, let alone turn the software on. Thus the "most efficient network" because dust, because there isn't anyone using it.

Clearly, if they need a linux update, they can turn software for the time it takes to get it and turn it off. Or they can do the smart thing and just download the files from a legit source.

As for your video files, why would you want to compress them? Considering you can slap 5 gig eailty onto a shiny plastic disc, why not just burn it? The time it would take to upload 450 meg to a file locker (and download it again) is incomprehensible. It is soundly inefficient.

We can all make up excuses why X or Y or Z has "legit uses", but that is besides the point here. P2P without the pirated material would be devoid of users. How efficient a network would that be if nobody was using it?

b) You mean people couldn't possibly do renderfarms like Renderfarm.fi?
I don't think you understand what a server is, but let me clarify things for you, it is a COMPUTER moron!, if you link thousands of them you have a super computer how difficult is that to understand? Or are you trying to say that some computers are better then others at doing the same job, then it is not a problem with the software that is a hardware issue. P2P is used in supercomputers what do you think they do?

c) Remarkably inefficient? Not what supercomputing designers say. Distributed computing(a.k.a. P2P) is the most efficient way to do any big job, render farms use it(i.e. renderfarm.fi), super computers designers use it, Intel use it, Nvidia, AMD, the U.S. Army.

Did I mention something totally unreleated about how some crazy people made a rocket and launched it using donations?HEAT-1X launch Copenhagen Suborbitals This is an open source rocket project that actually launched a rocket.
But of course that can't be happening nobody would do such a thing without protection LoL

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Question: do you think there would be many P2P nodes (users) online if there wasn't widespread piracy? Do you think that everyone would have their P2P software turned on full time to share Sita Sings The Blues and trade Corey Smith songs? "

Have you just now realized the problems of a globally underserved market?

Do you realize the amount of time that places such as the Washington Post, Techdirt, Ars Technica, Wired, among other places go to in making movie people stop thinking that windowing serves nothing more than their bottom lines?

Do you realize how much time and effort is spent in criticizing regionalization? And the movie goers have JUST. FIGURED. THIS OUT! This site has been open for... 10+ years?

I bet you didn't even know that most "piracy" happens in places where you can't get American movies, such as Saudi Arabia. I bet you didn't even get the memo that most downloading occurs in Germany or Switzerland, not necessarily the US. But there you go thinking very ethnocentrically that the US is full of pirates. There's your sign.

" If they cannot get it, they would not be there."
See above, add legal alternatives. Make money. It's not that hard. Or are you going to sit here and say that people don't pay for cyberlockers because they want everything free?

"P2P is neither efficient nor the best way to distribute data, because most networks are not built in that manner. The most effecient way to distribute something is through distributed server networks, where you connect to a server reasonably close to you and download what you want as quickly as you can."

False. Napster was slow and inefficient and overloaded servers. Bittorrent being the best way to distribute files, is used by Facebook, Twitter, along with those "pirate" infrastructures you're so up in arms about.

"Those methods are remarkably inefficient, but have low costs for distribution."

Unless you're a hardware engineer, you're losing my respect quite quickly by making up facts you think are true...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Okay, let's talk networking in general. ISPs in general build and tune their networks for web surfing, direct downloads, etc. They use hubs, that spread out in a star pattern to nodes, that spread out in a star pattern to "sub" nodes, on down to your neighborhood network node, which connects you and your neighbors up. The design is to flow traffic from the main hub (gateway to the internet) to your computer at speed, with a return (your requests, etc) at a slower speed. Most ISPs tend to go for anywhere between a 10 to 1 and 20 to 1 ratio on download to upload speed.

Your ISP network is not specifically made to handle requests that go peer to peer within their own network. Further, that sort of connection means that the traffic has to be handled twice through their network (once from you all the way to the hub, and then back out of the hub all the way to the other user. So a 1 meg download actually uses 2 megs of network bandwidth. It's just not in their structure.

Further, internal routing is often not very well done inside an ISP network, in that all outgoing requests may be sent through a gateway before being checked for a route, which can add congestion.

Also, many IPSs use non-synchronous routing for their external connections, using a lower bandwidth (but often more expensive and faster) outgoing connection to send your requests, and route back a different way through a low cost bandwidth provider to bring the data back to you. It's cost effecient. ISPs often don't have anywhere near the outgoing bandwidth as compared to their incoming bandwidth, because of that previously mentioned ratio. When you start to send large amounts of data off of your computer, you are pretty much going against their whole data layout and planning.

Why was Napster slow? It could take a true network engineer hours to explain it all to you, but the easiest explaination is that they didn't have the money to have enough infrastructure to do the work. Their setup was amateurish, and didn't scale well.

Consider a Microsoft Windows update. They have to do millions of those things, and they do it without issue. They don't need P2P to do it. Youtube doesn't need P2P to deliver so many videos. Both of them are delivering tons more than Napster ever did. Napster wasn't made to scale, it failed. The others do not.

Can you explain how twitter and facebook use P2P? I must have missed something.

Clearly, if they need a linux update, they can turn software for the time it takes to get it and turn it off. Or they can do the smart thing and just download the files from a legit source.

BitTorrent is a "legit source" for Linux updates.

Your ISP network is not specifically made to handle requests that go peer to peer within their own network. Further, that sort of connection means that the traffic has to be handled twice through their network (once from you all the way to the hub, and then back out of the hub all the way to the other user. So a 1 meg download actually uses 2 megs of network bandwidth.

BZZT! Wrong.

If I download 1 meg from www.bigsite.com, I use 1 meg of my ISP bandwidth, which I pay for, and www.bigsite.com uses 1 meg of their ISP bandwidth, which they pay for.

If I download 1 meg from another customer of my own ISP, I use 1 meg of my ISP bandwidth, which I pay for, and he uses 1 meg of his ISP bandwidth, which he pays for.

If anything it can even be more efficient since there are probably fewer network hops between us and the packet may not have to leave the ISP's internal network (and they get charged by their own ISP for traffic that does leave, but not for internal traffic, just as your downloads from bigsite.com or P2P count towards any bandwidth caps or usage fees you have, but your downloads from your other PC over your LAN or WiFi do not).

Further, internal routing is often not very well done inside an ISP network, in that all outgoing requests may be sent through a gateway before being checked for a route, which can add congestion.

I'm not to blame for a hypothetical ISP misdesigning its network in a manner that isn't optimal for the real-world traffic patterns its customers generate; the ISP is. They made their bed; let them lie in it.

In your hypothetical worst case scenario, though, the P2P traffic is no worse for the ISP's costs than if both customers made 1 meg downloads from bigsite.com. But still saves bigsite.com 2 megs of bandwidth if, say, bigsite.com is Blizzard pushing out a WoW update that uses BitTorrent.

Consider a Microsoft Windows update. They have to do millions of those things, and they do it without issue. They don't need P2P to do it. Youtube doesn't need P2P to deliver so many videos. Both of them are delivering tons more than Napster ever did. Napster wasn't made to scale, it failed. The others do not.

Napster is a straw man here. BitTorrent is designed to avoid exactly the scaling (and legalistic single-point-of-failure) problems that Napster had. And it scales very well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Once again. You are explaining a centralized database. This is what Napster used in a nutshell. You would have one person ping to the Napster server, and another person ping to that same server, which is a very inefficient system. Such is a centralized database.

What bittorrent does is check around for a part of a file from each person in the "swarm" who might have it. It gets part of the file from Peter, part of it from Paul in a scrambled fashion. After everything is done, it puts it all together and that is what Bittorrent does. It's a *lot* more efficient to use.

I'm explaining this the best I can and you're making this far more difficult than it has to be. Hell man, Napster's LEGAL troubles were what did it under.

So, when you're saying P2P, you have a different connotation to me. I'm thinking you mean centralized databases that are the ways of the 90s.

Re:

Napster's failing also had nothing to do with scaling, but with the legal issues that the content industry had with it. But now their shill is advocating the exact same technology that they condemned 10 years ago. I wanna welcome the first shill to the 21st century.
Soon enough, he'll realize that the Internet isn't out to get his masters, but that it can effectively give them a leg up in the world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You don't know what you're talking about. You're the same idiot that was running here the other day around arguing that digital radio isn't radio, aren't you?

They use hubs...

Idiot.

Most ISPs tend to go for anywhere between a 10 to 1 and 20 to 1 ratio on download to upload speed.

Oh, so that's why web servers are all so slow, huh? I mean, gee, if the ISP's only understood that in order for something to get downloaded, it has to get upload first the internet would work a whole lot better. /s

It could take a true network engineer hours to explain it all to you...

Which you obviously aren't.

Consider a Microsoft Windows update. They have to do millions of those things, and they do it without issue.

Wow. Even with 20 times more download than upload capacity they still manage to do that. Their download capacity must be incredible! I wonder what they download all day. Linux? /s

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Further, internal routing is often not very well done inside an ISP network,

Citation needed. If that was much of a problem it seems like they would fix it, doesn't it?

Also, many IPSs use non-synchronous routing for their external connections, using a lower bandwidth (but often more expensive and faster) outgoing connection to send your requests, and route back a different way through a low cost bandwidth provider to bring the data back to you. It's cost effecient.

Huh? Um, no, very, very few do that. Because it usually isn't cost "effecient".

You know, if you're going to come around here spouting off about such things, you should go learn what you're talking about first. Because some of us here do this stuff for a living and know what we're talking about, unlike a lying sack of shill.